Uncategorized —

Carmakers must tell consumers about “black boxes”

A new government rule will require auto manufacturers to notify consumers …

"Black boxes" aren't just for airplanes; they've made their way into cars as well, but many consumers remain unaware of the fact that crucial driving data may be tracked and retained by the devices. A new (and incredibly long) rule (PDF) from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will ensure that consumers (at least those who read their owner's manual) know that a black box is installed beneath the hood.

Event Data Recorders (EDRs), as the devices are known, have become so popular that 64 percent of new vehicles have them installed. Manufacturers collect different kinds of data, though, and their formats can be incompatible. That's why the main thrust of the NHTSA rule is to standardize the collection and format of the collected data for manufacturers that choose to install an EDR (it remains optional).

That data includes the speed that the vehicle was traveling for the five seconds proceeding an accident, whether the brake was applied or not, and whether the driver was wearing a safety belt. EDRs will also collect more technical information like the vehicle roll angle, the lateral acceleration of the vehicle, the change in forward crash speed, and whether the airbag system was properly working one second before a crash.

The government requires that all light vehicle EDRs meet the new standards by September 1, 2010.

A black box for Big Brother?

Though privacy advocates sometimes worry about the technology, it has two significant limitations that keep it from functioning like a mobile Big Brother. The first is that it does not record location (though manufacturers can add this ability if they wish). The second is that EDRs only keep data for the few seconds before an accident. This is not technology that will track your driving habits and send you speeding tickets in the mail (yet).

The government's hope is that standardized EDR data will help to "speed medical assistance through providing a foundation for automatic crash notification." In essence, the goal is to design cars that automatically call for help the moment an accident occurs. The NHTSA also wants to collect data for research purposes, so it can better issue guidelines for the construction of guard rails, crash barriers, and air bag systems.

When a 77-year-old woman in Texas drove her Cadillac through a post office's plate-glass window and killed an occupant inside, she claimed the car accelerated on its own. Her car's black box belied her story and helped the victim's family win a wrongful-death suit. Similarly, when two cars collided in Montreal in 2001, killing one driver, the surviving driver blamed the deceased driver for speeding. But data from the survivor's black box revealed that he'd been the one driving 80 mph in a 50-mph zone.

Not everyone likes EDR data. Few tests have been done on its accuracy, and the code is closed and difficult to evaluate. What happens when an EDR gives inaccurate information? Will judges and juries be more likely to trust the "infallible" black box over the word of the human? Worries like this have led the National Motorists' Association to take a position against the use of EDRs in court cases.

Assuming that EDR is used as one more tool in an investigation and does not become the only piece of evidence against a person, it seems entirely reasonable—much of the same information can be reconstructed by crash site investigators, anyway, and witnesses are often disoriented by an accident or unwilling to provide key details (i.e., the real speed at which they were travelling).